TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants are presented before Commissioner (Appeals), who should examine the aforementioned documentary evidence and pass a fresh speaking order - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/1610/11-Mum - A/86344/17/SMB - Dated:- 9-3-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri T.C. Nair, Advocate for the Appellant(s) Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Respondent(s) Per : Devender Singh The appellants have filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. M-V/RKS/65-66/2011 dated 27/07/2011passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Insulated wires and cables. On 21.01.1999, during surprise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The same is not under challenge under these proceedings. 4. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the PVC compound is an intermediate product which was captively consumed and the same was exempted under the Notification No.67/95-CE. He further argued that there was no variation in the quantity of final product. While the department considered the production slips, they should also have considered the issue slips. He presented a re-conciliation chart and stated that if the issue slips are considered, the difference of the quantity found short would be 2964 kg, which is 1.63% of their production. He relied upon the following case laws: (i) CCE vs. Brims Products - 2011 (271) ELT 184 (Patna) (vi) Swastik Udyog vs. CCE ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission on their part in making the entries in statutory RG-1 Register. The statement showing the production of PVC compounds of various grades manufactured during 01.01.1999 to 21.01.1999 was signed by the Deputy General Manager (Commercial). The difference of 85597 kg of various PVC compounds is justified by the appellants on the ground that the same was captively consumed. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their claim on the ground that the appellants failed to furnish the copies of the issue slips and that the statement showing issue of various PVC compounds had not been signed by the appellants. He has also given a finding that the appellants failed to produce any documentary evidence even at the appellate stage in sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
